The commercial pilot was conducting a skydiving flight with 15 skydivers on board. The pilot reported
that, at 5,000 ft above ground level, he reconfigured the airplane for a climb and activated the interior
amber jump lights, which indicated that the door could be opened to spot the jump zone. Two jumpers
safely exited the airplane at that time. The pilot then initiated another climb. The pilot did not recall any
jump indication lights being illuminated in the cabin during the climb, and none of the remaining
jumpers notified him of any illuminated jump lights. However, three of the jumpers later reported that
the amber jump light remained illuminated at that time. One of the jumpers informed a senior jumper
from the operator that the light was on, but he indicated that it was not a problem, and the jumpers all
affirmed that no one informed the pilot that the amber light remained on.
Category: Accident Type
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Safety Inspector that arrived at the scene
shortly after the accident, he located the uninjured pilot in command (PIC) and a passenger rated pilot
who were the only occupants of the airplane. The inspector reported that the PIC told him that he had
fueled the airplane prior to the flight. The PIC told the inspector that he had flown 2.5 hours on the right
tank which indicated 3.9 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel quantity indicator, at which
time he switched to the left tank which indicated 15 gallons of fuel remained per the electronic fuel
quantity indicator. The PIC reported to the inspector thatafter switching tanks the engine ran for an
additional five minutes and ceased operation. The PIC told the inspector that he contacted air traffic
control (ATC) stating that he had experienced an “engine failure”, and that they would not make it to the
nearest airport. The pilot landed the airplane on a highway five miles from the destination airport.
During the landing the nose gear collapsed and the airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.
The commercial pilot reported that, after takeoff on the local skydiving flight, the engine experienced a
total loss of power. He initiated a turn toward the airport, but realized the airplane would not reach the
runway and chose to perform a forced landing to an open field. During the landing roll, the airplane
exited the field, crossed a road, impacted a truck, and continued into a vineyard, where it nosed over.
The pilot reported that he was landing in gusty crosswind conditions following a parachute jump flight,
and that the gusty conditions had persisted for the previous 10 skydiving flights that day. The pilot
further reported that during the landing roll, when the nose wheel touched down, the airplane became
“unstable” and veered to the left. He reported that he applied right rudder and added power to abort the
landing, but the airplane departed the runway to the left and the left wing impacted a tree. The airplane
spun 180 degrees to the left and came to rest after the impact with the tree.
According to the pilot of the tricycle landing gear equipped airplane, he was performing skydiving
operations. He reported that he felt rushed in performing his assigned duties because, “the skydiving
school kept wanting me to return quicker for the next load.” The pilot recalled that after dropping the
sky divers, he made his approach to land; the airplane ballooned during the flare, and landed hard on all
three landing gear. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall.
The commercial pilot was returning the airplane to the departure airport for landing after a skydiving
flight. Two witnesses reported observing the pilot fly the airplane over the runway; one witness said it
was about 50 ft above ground level (agl), and the other witness said it was about 100 ft agl. One of the
witnesses added that, when the airplane reached the end of the runway, it pitched up about 45 degrees,
gained about 200 ft of altitude, and then entered a turn with a 45-bank angle. The witness added that,
after the airplane had turned about 90 degrees to a westerly heading, its nose dropped, and the airplane
“immediately dove.” The airplane subsequently entered a left spin and rotated about 180 degrees before
impacting trees and then the ground. A second witness noted that the engine sounded like it was at “full
throttle” during the descent as if the pilot was attempting to recover from the dive.
The pilot stated that he was conducting a skydiver “jump run”, and prior to letting the skydivers out the
radio squelch interrupter failed causing a constant static noise. After letting the skydivers out over the
airport the pilot set up the descent based on the winds acquired for the previous landing on runway 22.
As he circled for landing the manifold pressure indication “dropped off” to zero. The pilot was unsure if
he had a partial power loss or a gauge failure. He could not hear or feel the engine indications because of
the static noise on the radio squelch and descent profile, so he committed to a power off glide path for
his approach. The pilot stated that the airplanes approach speed was about 100 knots prior to the
threshold for landing. The airplane touched down beyond the threshold and as the pilot applied full
braking the airplane “ballooned” back into the air. The pilot attempted to stop the airplane but was
unsuccessful and exited the runway, coming to rest after colliding with a ditch.
On July 19, 2015, about 1515 universal coordinated time, a Cessna 206G, HC-CLR, was destroyed by collision with terrain during a forced landing following a loss of engine power during descent to Edmund Carvajal Airport (XMS), Macas, Santiago, Ecuador.
The commercial pilot was conducting a local skydiving flight with four skydivers. After the airplane
climbed to 3,800 ft, one of the skydivers deployed, and at 11,000 ft, the remaining three skydivers
deployed. The pilot stated that the procedure for deploying skydivers was to input 10° of flaps before the
skydivers’ deployment. After the last skydiver exited the airplane, the pilot closed the door and started to
retract the flaps from 10° to 0°. The pilot heard a “metallic” snap, and the airplane went into a spin. The
pilot recovered the airplane from the spin about 7,000 ft. He discovered that the right flap was partially
deployed about 5° down and appeared to be crooked in its track. In addition, he noted a vibration from
the right flap with restricted aileron control. The pilot stated that lateral control was difficult to maintain.
After a radio conference with a mechanic and about 30 minutes of trying to control the airplane, the pilot
chose to bail out of the airplane; he maneuvered the airplane over unpopulated farmland, shut down the
engine, and parachuted. The pilot watched the airplane circle after his parachute deployed. The pilot
landed and did not sustain injuries; the airplane impacted terrain and sustained substantial damage.
The pilot reported that the accident flight was his second skydiving flight of the morning and that the
airplane was performing “normally” as it had during the first flight. During climbout, he noted that the
engine cylinder head temperatures were in the “normal” range. When the airplane reached about 4,000 ft
mean sea level, the engine experienced a total loss of power, and, about 1 minute later, the propeller
stopped windmilling. The pilot conducted an off-airport landing to a nearby highway. During the
landing roll, and to avoid impacting vehicles on the highway, the pilot guided the airplane onto the
median, and the wings and horizontal stabilizer impacted several road signs, which resulted in
substantial damage to the airplane.
The commercial pilot reported that he maneuvered back toward the airport to land after dropping
skydivers. During the approach for landing, about 1,000 ft above the airport, the engine experienced a
total loss of power. The pilot was unable to restart the engine and subsequently initiated a forced landing
to the desert floor.
The pilot reported that, during the postmaintenance test flight, the turboprop engine lost power. The
airplane was unable to maintain altitude, and the pilot conducted a forced landing, during which the
airplane was substantially damaged.
The engine had about 9 total flight hours at the time of the accident. A teardown of the fuel pump
revealed that the high-pressure drive gear teeth exhibited wear and that material was missing from them,
whereas the driven gear exhibited little to no visible wear. A metallurgical examination of the gears
revealed that the damaged drive gear was made of a material similar to 300-series stainless steel instead
of the harder specified M50 steel, whereas the driven gear was made of a material similar to the
specified M50 steel. Subsequent to these findings, the airplane manufacturer determined that the gear
manufacturer allowed three set-up gears made from 300-series stainless steel to become part of the
production inventory during the manufacturing process. One of those gears was installed in the fuel
pump on the accident airplane, and the location of the two other gears could not be determined. Based
on the evidence, it is likely that the nonconforming gear installed in the fuel pump failed because it was
manufactured from a softer material than specified, which resulted in a loss of fuel flow to the engine
and the subsequent loss of engine power.
A de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter airplane, N30EA, collided with another Twin Otter airplane, N70EA,
on the runway. The pilot of N30EA reported that, once she started the engines, the airplane rolled
forward and to the left 180 degrees because the steering-tiller had been positioned sharply to the left
when the airplane was last parked. The pilot stated that, when she applied the brakes, there was no
response, and the airplane subsequently collided with the right wing of N70EA. The pilot of N30EA
reported that, after the collision, she noted that the hydraulic circuit breaker was open; this would have
resulted in insufficient hydraulic pressure to control the parking or pedal brakes. The pilot of N30EA
said that she should have noticed that the hydraulic circuit breaker was open before she started the
engines because it was part of the Before Starting Engines checklist.
According to the pilot, he was attempting a soft field landing on runway 27. Following a stable
approach and landing, a gust of wind was encountered. The airplane veered to the right and the
pilot was unable to stop the airplane before the right wing struck a wind sock pole. An
inspector from the Federal Aviation Administration examined the airplane and confirmed
substantial damage to the right wing. The pilot reported no pre-impact mechanical
malfunctions or failures with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
While climbing through 2,500 feet after takeoff, the pilot observed a red-tailed hawk approaching the
airplane from below. The hawk impacted the left wing, and the pilot elected to perform a precautionary
landing. The airplane subsequently landed without incident. Postaccident examination by a Federal
Aviation Administration inspector revealed substantial damage to the left wing.
The pilot was on final approach when the engine started to run out of fuel. She said her boss
had a similar problem on a previous flight, and had to correct for it by pitching the nose up and
down to force fuel into the fuel lines. The pilot recalled pitching the nose up and down but
nothing after that. A witness, who saw the airplane pitching up and down several times before
it impacted the ground, responded to the crash. He noted that the fuel selector was set to the
"both" position and no fuel was leaking from either fuel tank’s gas cap. When the
airplane was righted, the witness said he saw several gallons of fuel drain from the left tank but
not the right tank. When he visually checked the right fuel tank, it was empty. The left tank had
about 9 gallons (about 6.5 gallons usable) still in the tank. A postaccident examination of the
airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed the airplane sustained
substantial damage to the firewall, forward engine mounts, right wing and vertical stabilizer
and rudder. About 6 gallons of fuel was drained from the left wing tank and the right tank was
empty. A review of the terrain where the airplane impacted the ground revealed the vegetation
around the left tank was discolored from fuel, but the area around the right tank was not. No
pre mishap mechanical discrepancies were noted with the engine or airplane that would have
precluded normal operation.
According to the pilot’s report, he leveled the airplane about 11,000 feet and established a speed of 80 mph with 10 degrees of flaps extended. When the last skydiver exited the airplane, its nose pitched up. The pilot pushed forwarded on the control wheel and added full engine power
The skydiving airplane was on a ramp with its engines operating while the pilot waited for passengers to
board. The pilot asked an employee of the skydiving operator if he could order something to eat for
lunch. The employee responded that she had time to come see the pilot at the airplane because she was
expecting a small delay before the next flight. The pilot thought the delay was not long enough to justify
shutting down the engines. The pilot observed the employee exit the manifest office and run toward the
airplane. The skydiving operator typically flew single-engine airplanes with the propeller located in
front of the cockpit; however, the accident airplane was a twin-engine airplane with its propellers
located under each wing. The operator’s employee subsequently walked into the operating propeller
under the airplane’s left wing, sustaining fatal injuries.
The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was to make numerous takeoffs and transport skydivers to
an adequate jumping altitude. The first takeoff was uneventful, and after the skydivers egressed the
airplane, the pilot returned back to the airport. During the landing, the airplane bounced three times
down the runway. The pilot taxied to the hangar and without shutting down the engine, boarded the
second load of skydivers. Shortly thereafter, the pilot departed and during the initial climb, he attempted
to retract the landing gear. The landing gear would not retract and the pilot decided to continue the flight
with the landing gear extended. After the skydivers jumped, the pilot landed without incident. He taxied
back to the hangar and shut down the engine. After exiting the airplane he noticed that the propeller tips
were bent. As a result of the impact, the firewall was substantially damaged.
According to the commercial pilot, following a skydiving operation, he returned to the airport. During
the landing attempt and as the airplane was about 15 ft above ground level, the airplane banked left and
the left main landing gear (MLG) then contacted the turf runway, so he immediately performed a goaround.
Ground personnel subsequently contacted the pilot via radio to inform him that the left MLG
had separated from the airplane. The pilot then performed an emergency landing, and, during the landing
roll, the left wing contacted the runway, which resulted in substantial damage to the left wing spar.
A Cessna 182L (182), the lead airplane, and a Cessna 185F (185), the trail airplane, collided during a
formation skydiving flight. Both pilots flew the airplanes in a rectangular pattern until they reached the
jump altitude of 12,700 ft mean sea level. The 182 pilot established a jump heading and visually
confirmed that the 185 was to the left side and aft of the 182. The 182 pilot then called out “door open”
and jumpers “climbing out.” Subsequently, the four skydivers on board the 182 climbed out onto the
airplane’s right wing strut and right wheel step. Almost immediately, the 182 was struck by the 185. The
182’s windshield was shattered, and the airplane entered an uncontrollable descent. During the descent,
the right wing separated from the airplane, and the right wing fuel tank exploded. The 182 pilot exited
the airplane and parachuted safely to the ground. The 185 pilot reported that “when it was time for the
skydivers to climb out, the two planes began to drift together and in seemingly no time at all, the two
were colliding.” After the collision, the skydivers on board the 185 jumped from the airplane as it
inverted; the pilot was able to recover the airplane and land.
Video of the collision from NBC News
DD.com Blog discussion.
At least 10 civilian parachutists were killed alongside a pilot today when their light plane crashed into a field in Belgium. Four of those on board the stricken Pilatus PC-6 Porter had been seen desperately trying to get out after the aircraft caught fire and a wing dropped off. But they were unable to open their chutes before the plane crashed into the ground near the town of Marchovelette, in the southern Namur region.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2467472/Belgium-plane-crash-kills-10-parachutists.html#ixzz2iVbcMnCN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebookhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2467472/Belgium-plane-crash-kills-10-parachutists.html
The pilot reported that he had flown a group of skydivers to altitude for an intentional
parachute jump about 3 miles north of the airport and was returning for landing at the time of
the accident. The airplane was on final approach when the engine lost power. The pilot’s
attempts to restore engine power were unsuccessful, and he ditched the airplane into a lake
short of the runway. The pilot reported using carburetor heat during the descent; however, the
pilot did not periodically apply engine power (clear the engine) during the descent. According
to FAA Advisory Circular 20-113, Pilot Precautions and Procedures to be Taken in Preventing
Aircraft Reciprocating Engine Induction System and Fuel System Icing Problems, "Heat
should be applied for a short time to warm the induction system before beginning a prolonged
descent with the engine throttled and left on during the descent. Power lever advancement
should be performed periodically during descent to assure that power recovery can be
achieved." A postaccident engine examination did not reveal any anomalies consistent
with a preimpact failure or malfunction. Local weather conditions were conducive to the
formation of carburetor icing.